.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, December 19, 2005

Insurance against off season player loss

League determines "under market value" of signed players between the season's end and the World Series. Players are grouped into 3 tiers; 30, 20, and 10 dinero, representing the difference between their signed contract and their "fair market value". If a BU team loses one of these players to the AL through either a trade or a FA signing, the BU team would receive additional draft dinero equal to their tier level (30,20, or 10 dinero). BU team would be charged this additional dinero.

Presently I estimate the following "values":

Tier 30 players: Carpenter, Wright, Bay
Tier 20 players: Harang
Tier 10 players: Berkman, Patterson, Duke, Cain, Myers, Howard

One could argue that rookies should be exempt due to the volatility in determining value eliminating Duke, Cain, and Howard from the list.

Beltre last year would have been a 20 or 30.

There is something to be said to balancing the above with a tax of 5 dinero or so on teams losing overvalued guys from BU.

More than 5 overvalued: Lowell, Morris, Garciaparra, Padilla, Closser, Sledge, Rolen, Grieve.

A first pass at slotting players by value could be made a small committee before being submitted to review by the league. Players value could be confirmed by vote.

Cooney and I discussed this idea earlier today, and I am all for it. I think it embodies the ideas behind the franchise player rule, but rids us of all the unwanted scenarios.

I would point out though, that it was my understanding that this would only apply to players lost to the AL via trade. I hadn't really thought about losing a player due to Free Agency. My initial thought is that those players should be excluded as they were going to be free agents anyway, and you should have known that risk already.

Anyway, I like it and think we are on the correct path. Hopefully others will think so as well.

Am I understanding this correctly? Carpenter gets traded and Bob goes into draft with 290 dinero?
I have a new plan for off season losses. How about you get the dinero back and can spend it on a different player at the draft.
I view the Cooney proposal as both interesting and highly subjective. How dare he call Harang a $10 player - I'd pay $22 of my hard-earned dinero for him right now. How dare he single out Kearns for gosh sakes - hasn't the man been through enough to not be raked through the public media blogs. And finally who says Rolen is overpaid...ok I'll retract that - got a little carried away.
Yes Awobs, if Carpenter was determined to be in the 30 tier, and if he was lost to the AL, then yes Bob would have 290 to spend at the draft (paid for with $145 real dollars). As you recall I was adamantly opposed to the FP rule last year, pointing out the many ways it could backfire, but the vote was 8-4. If we can't convince 4 of the 8 who voted for it last year to agree with your not "new" plan, then this suggestion is a non-starter. I have heard of 1 team that would possibly change their vote, but that is not enough. Anybody want to go on record as changing their vote? Hartman bros, Nick and Coo already voted no.

DR: I assume you are mostly kidding, but don't focus too much on my hypothetical values (need a system of valuing that everyone agrees with), I wanted to illustrate with examples.
See how easy it is? Now Harang is "worth" 20 and Kearns isn't overvalued.
I'll go on record for changing Wobblies vote from last year. Trust me, he gave me his proxy.

I prefer the FP rule to the player valuation in the Star Chamber proposal. Who values the players and how? Any system that gives one team more to spend at the draft than others completely skews the league.
Yes, I agree, that giving teams more money as compensation could prove bad at the draft, but I'm not sure of that. I would have to see how it played out at a draft to make that decision. Anyway, I still believe that the FP rule with some tweaks will prove to be an effective "insurance" policy for teams who are trying to build for the future. We CAN make that rule work well.

I liked the idea that Mike and I came up with only becuase it prevented teams from protecting guys like Brady Clark or WM Pena, and it didn't award any M Ramirez's should they come to the league for one of those guys. I still maintain that if Huge lost David Wright in a Manny trade, his use of Manny would be justified for one season.
Give me 290 dinero at this years draft and I'll lets you know how it works out.
I say let's see how the rule works. It hasn't even been in effect 6 months.

PS Maybe we can revist the signing minor leaguers for 4 years instead of just 3 thing....LOL

Peace, happy holidays, and bring on spring training.

PSS - What's the ruling on Sledge?

You should get Sledge back IMO.

It's only a matter of time until the FP rule has a really bad outcome. Thome for whoever he was traded for is an example. Sledge, if protected, was another.

Awobs: your criticisms are hard to follow. Are you worried about valuing players at the end of the year or are you worried about draft inflation.

If the value was accurate there would be no inflation. On the contrary, if Carpenter is removed from our league there would be 30 or so less dinero spread amongst the other players, i.e. deflation.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?